Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Pixel Response, Input Lag, And Usability

LG 34UM95 34-Inch Ultra-Wide QHD Monitor Review
By

To perform these tests, we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100% white field.

The pattern generator is placed at the base of the monitor so our camera can capture the precise moment its front-panel LED lights up, indicating that a video signal is being received by the monitor. With this camera placement, we can easily see how long it takes to fully display a pattern after pressing the button on the generator’s remote. This testing methodology allows for accurate and repeatable results when comparing panels.

Here’s a shot of our test setup. Click on the photo to enlarge.

The brighter section of the camera’s screen is what appears in the video. You can see the lights of the pattern generator in the bottom of the viewfinder. We flash the pattern on and off five times and average the results.

Twenty-five milliseconds is the typical result we get from almost every IPS panel we benchmark. Until we have a chance to measure a higher-refresh capable display, it seems that the technology has made no progress toward improving pixel response.

Here are the lag results:

Serious gamers will probably look for better input lag performance. But among 60 Hz IPS screens, the 34UM95 acquits itself well. Only the TN-based panels can beat it in our current group. Compared to other IPS displays, it’s one of the fastest products we’ve seen.

And for those of you wondering about the Overlord Tempest X270OC, we have one in the lab and its review will be published very soon.

Usability Testing

With so much screen area available, LG thoughtfully includes an app that automatically sizes Windows (it works on Macs too) into user-definable screen zones. The photo above shows a four-window configuration, though you can use other layouts as well, demonstrated in the screenshot below.

Once you select an option, windows dragged to a particular area automatically size themselves to fill that zone. You can arrange your apps very quickly this way.

With or without the Screen Split utility, LG's 34UM95 is a pleasure to use. I debate the multi-monitor configuration on and off for my own workstation, but haven't pulled the trigger. I'm well-adapted to a single 27-inch QHD display. So, a 34-inch ultra-wide would give me an extra 7.75 inches of width versus what I already use.

For gaming, this certainly won’t replicate a three 24" monitors in Eyefinity or Surround. But if you're a casual like myself, the extra width creates a more immersive experience. From 30 inches away, the sides of the screen are just within my peripheral vision. In fast-paced titles, I do actually turn my head a little as action pans horizontally. Vertically, I don’t think I’d be comfortable with any more height. Of course, your mileage may vary.

In my opinion, the 34-inch diagonal size is ideal for a single ultra-wide monitor. Since the pixel density is identical to QHD’s 109 PPI, there is no difference in font size or perceived resolution.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 28 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 6 Hide
    InfinityPixels , July 25, 2014 12:30 AM
    I want this so bad.
  • -7 Hide
    rantoc , July 25, 2014 3:20 AM
    4k gaming is amazing but demand alot from the computer hardware. Just got a dell 3214 and its hard to describe how much better the picture/emersion is with the way higher definition in the picture quality and still came from descent 2560x1600 before that.

    Playing on "full" hd (LD? Low definition) feels like a joke once you get to know uhd/4k
  • 2 Hide
    wtfxxxgp , July 25, 2014 3:33 AM
    Rantoc, what does your comment have to do with the article? Seems to me that you were waiting for an opportunity to brag about your new monitor... Glad you got that out of your system. lol

    With regards to this monitor...I LOVE the looks...very elegant. I think the price tag is fitting as well - it has great resolution and there are still plenty of people who are gaming on 60hz displays that may have just enough GPU power to actually game at this thing's native resolution, albeit with slightly lower settings. GG LG!
  • 8 Hide
    ubercake , July 25, 2014 4:30 AM
    Great to see larger-sized higher-than-HD res monitors.
  • 1 Hide
    Nossy , July 25, 2014 5:39 AM
    For a grand, you can get two Asus PB278Q.
  • -1 Hide
    cknobman , July 25, 2014 6:50 AM
    $1000?

    Next
  • 1 Hide
    xPandaPanda , July 25, 2014 9:43 AM
    I have this monitor. Because of it's cinema format, market age, lower production numbers, and early adoption as competitors haven't offered this yet, it is reasonable to think this monitor would cost this much--a lot.

    It would have been nice to include what revision this is, because LG is aware of uniformity issues, which is why the product was largely on backorder and a Rev.2 is in place (but Rev. 2 didn't fix the problem either). My first one had a glaring Uniformity problem, but LG is cool and offered an advanced exchange. The new one has some uniformity problem, but it is very 'livable' and discrete.

    Overall, I am pleased with this product. I have a single 780 to push this and it works nicely. If I got a 4k monitor, I'd have performance issues as the GPU as a whole sector is behind.

  • 6 Hide
    eklipz330 , July 25, 2014 12:09 PM
    as a pc gamer who has been playing for ~15 years, i have to say that this is one of the biggest changes that i've seen on the pc platform. this is a big step towards bringing pc back to relevancy. it's something that will be held to acclaim in productive and gaming environments. in fact, the only thing that i'm surprised that they didn't do is make it curved, simply because when a user sets up a multi-monitor setup, they set the outside monitors at an angle. this makes curved monitor solutions make sense more so than tvs, especially since curved monitors benefit solo users the most. im shocked they didnt make it curved. probably going to cash in next year on that.

    seriously though, pc monitors have been lacking for some years now, falling behind in innovation and technology in general(phones have been jacking up their screen quality year after year, we've been stuck since like 2005). i bet 21:9 screens will have the biggest penetration on PCs.
  • -1 Hide
    josejones , July 25, 2014 1:48 PM
    Why still the old HDMI 1.4 instead of HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.2 instead of the new 1.4 ???
  • 0 Hide
    Jamie Blumenfeld , July 25, 2014 3:24 PM
    Wish this was 1600 pixels tall. Don't get the fascination with XX:9 at all.
  • -2 Hide
    mikeangs2004 , July 25, 2014 4:34 PM
    don't post spam
  • 0 Hide
    Phillip Wager , July 25, 2014 8:56 PM
    i want this bad its a good compromise of between high framerate and high pixel count. honestly for gaming i would just run 2560x1440 but i would run the full resolution for the desktop
  • 1 Hide
    SessouXFX , July 26, 2014 10:14 AM
    This monitor...it's been at the top of my list for nearly a month now. I know most gamers would prefer to see something with a better aspect ratio, and certainly better response and refresh time. But if you use your monitor for more than gaming, say watching movies, streaming on twitch, and using multiple applications at a time, I'm not sure how you can ignore it as a possibility.
  • 0 Hide
    photonboy , July 26, 2014 1:45 PM
    21:9 ->
    This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.

    The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.

    Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.

    Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.

    *If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.
  • 2 Hide
    SessouXFX , July 26, 2014 2:36 PM
    Quote:
    21:9 ->
    This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.

    The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.

    Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.

    Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.

    *If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.

    Don't knock it, if you haven't tried it. Seen the demos of this screen with 21:9, it's quite impressive looking, compared to the other ratios out there. At the very least, it's more compelling than given credit for.
  • 0 Hide
    Home-World , July 27, 2014 9:33 AM
    What to see the same density as 4k, the ultra wide is the way forward for me buy one instantly
  • 0 Hide
    moogleslam , July 27, 2014 12:53 PM
    This size/format needs G-Sync and a faster refresh rate, then it would be perfect for my gaming needs.
  • 0 Hide
    somebodyspecial , July 27, 2014 5:49 PM
    Next time, ask for an ULTRA TALL monitor. So we don't have to scroll too much. You know, just get back to 2560x1600. 1440p sucks and going further with width doesn't help my browsing etc. There's a premium on 1600P right now just because of all this 1440p crap taking over. How many people are using spreadsheets all day? Some width is ok but I'd rather have tall and more monitors to get more width (2 or 3 screens) vs. splitting crap on one HUGE wide screen. Give me 2 or 3 1600p 27/30inchers and I'd be happy to drop different apps on each or run games.

    Impressive LOOKING and impressive FUNCTIONALITY are two different things ;)  I'm not saying wide isn't good for SOME applications, but not for the majority of us. Not sure where monitor makers are getting their data, but I don't think they're asking the right people what we users want :) 
  • 0 Hide
    ubercake , July 28, 2014 5:24 AM
    ...

    Quote:
    This size/format needs G-Sync and a faster refresh rate, then it would be perfect for my gaming needs.


    That's what I'm thinking. It seems like the wider the screen resolution the more perceivable tearing is. G-sync would help this situation. Acer is supposed to be releasing a 4K G-sync monitor in the next 6 months or so:
    http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-monitors-unveiled-shipping-soon-worldwide
  • 0 Hide
    dehcbad25 , July 29, 2014 11:29 AM
    I had the 29UM95, and I am writing from that monitor. Christian...WHAT USERS WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SIZE? I can buy 2 29UM95 for the price of 1 34UM95.
    Granted the 34" will have its uses and applications, but from the UWHD I don't think it will be the most sold. the 27" might be too small, but 29" is perfect for 2650x1080. BTW, I do game in this monitor too, and I work on it TOO
Display more comments